Anti Cycling Legislators in Aus hit a new low.

Kev W

catbear wrote: »

If you saw a parked car with a flat tire would you report it for not being road worthy.

you're just being contrarian now. If this was after hours then no problem but this is real issue so on your bike.

I wasn't aware it was illegal for a parked car to have a flat tire.

I notice everyone who's railing against the idea of this fine is using "what if it was x" reasoning. That would be like me saying "what if it was an unlicensed shotgun, is that alright as long as you're not actually shooting someone in that moment". Which I wouldn't as that's not the issue at hand.

You either follow the law or you don't and accept the consequences. If you think the law is wrong, lobby to have it changed. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you or that the people whose job it is to enforce the law are wrong when they do their job.

Lemming

Kev W wrote: »

You either follow the law or you don't and accept the consequences. If you think the law is wrong, lobby to have it changed. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you or that the people whose job it is to enforce the law are wrong when they do their job.

I have a really simple response to this: what is the exact wording of the law regards bells in Australia? Is is that a cyclist must have one present? Or that all bikes must be fitted with one regardless of usage (unless exempt for racing).

Because if it's the former, and not the latter, then you are are very wrong in your assessment of pedestrians being fined whilst holding a bicycle on a footpath. If it's the latter then it begs the question of why aren't cycle shops being raided every other week to fine them for all the bikes that doni't have bells fitted as standard and required unter Australian law?

Fian

Kev W wrote: »

Why would the fact that she was walking make a difference? She still didn't have a bell on the bike and was in breach of the law.

I don't know why i am bothering.

But anyway:

93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance..


In the irish context it is not against the law to wheel a bike which does not have a bell. In this context pushing a bike does not constitute "using" the pedal cycle in a public place. So it would not be unlawful here.

Of course in the Irish context if a Garda actually brought a prosecution for using a bike without a bell he would most likely find the charges dismissed and himself bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour by way of reprimand from the court. Because even though laws can sometimes be a bit daft and out of date the judiciary are people rather than robots.

catbear

Fian wrote: »

Of course in the Irish context if a Garda actually brought a prosecution for using a bike without a bell he would most likely find the charges dismissed and himself bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour by way of reprimand from the court. Because even though laws can sometimes be a bit daft and out of date the judiciary are people rather than robots.

That's part of the problem in Australia, these kind of fines are on the spot and an important part of the forces revenue.
Australia is a police state where the public just accept police plundering as a cultural norm along with racism.

tomasrojo

Lemming wrote: »

I have a really simple response to this: what is the exact wording of the law regards bells in Australia?

From the Wikipedia bicycle bell page:

"Cycling Fact Sheet No. 46: Ring your bell to make others aware" (PDF). Government of Western Australia Department of Transportation. Retrieved 2011-07-03. Pedestrians have right-of-way on the State’s shared path system and the onus is on cyclists to provide a clear warning of their presence, particularly when approaching another path user from behind. For that reason, a person riding a bicycle in WA must have a bell or similar warning device that is in good working order.

So a person pushing a bike isn't really the target of the law.

(The PDF link is dead, but I'm not chasing this dead-end argument down any more dead ends.)

odyssey06

To put something into context, a car can fail an NCT because of headlight alignment... in the past it could fail due to faulty registration plate lamps (it's now pass advisory). I have to assume that there are good reasons why headlight alignment is tested, but I think you would be hard pressed to statistically demonstrate that it's an effective use of the resources of everyone involved - owners\mechanics\nct staff.
A car can also fail NCT due to not having a working horn.

A car without an NCT can be impounded immediately on the road by a Guard. If you don't have an NCT cert you might get away without being impounded but the Guard isn't going to start checking why you failed.

So your car could actually be impounded, and you earn penalty points on your licence, because your car doesn't have a horn. Or being in total compliance with headlight alignment standards.

Hard to get accurate figures for number of cars impounded per year, back in 2011 it was 26,000 for not having NCT, insurance or tax (we can leave the wisdom of using guards in such a direct role in revenue collection for another thread).

If we had tests in Ireland for bikes, you would not get one if you didn't have a bell. Just setting the context there, have discussed earlier their importance\possible alternatives.

tomasrojo

Kev W wrote: »

I notice everyone who's railing against the idea of this fine is using "what if it was x" reasoning.

I'm not. I'm objecting to it on the grounds that if the person wheeling the bike who was fined in Fremantle was guilty of anything, it was purely on a technicality and it was unjust and cynical.

As it turns out, it also looks as if the person in question wasn't doing anything illegal, not even on a technicality.

tomasrojo

odyssey06 wrote: »

If we had tests in Ireland for bikes, you would not get one if you didn't have a bell. Just setting the context there, have discussed earlier their importance\possible alternatives.

The bell law here is effectively a dead-letter law. It won't be removed from the statute books, but it will never be enforced. There are many laws like this. Most people are very happy that dead-letter laws are not enforced, as enforcing them all would be preposterous, and actually impossible.

The status of the bell law might change, but I doubt it. Most Gardaí and members of the judiciary aren't even aware the law exists.

I've nothing against bells (except that I've always found them no use, though I find the sound very evocative of civilised countries where cycling is commonplace), but the bell law is a very good example of a law whose non-observance is harmless and trivial.

Kev W

Lemming wrote: »

I have a really simple response to this: what is the exact wording of the law regards bells in Australia? Is is that a cyclist must have one present? Or that all bikes must be fitted with one regardless of usage (unless exempt for racing).

Because if it's the former, and not the latter, then you are are very wrong in your assessment of pedestrians being fined whilst holding a bicycle on a footpath. If it's the latter then it begs the question of why aren't cycle shops being raided every other week to fine them for all the bikes that doni't have bells fitted as standard and required unter Australian law?

It's the former:
Every bicycle must have within easy reach a functioning warning device such as a bell or horn.

As to why there aren't raids taking place, I don't know that there aren't. Probably not though as it would be a waste of resources.

galwaycyclist

odyssey06 wrote: »

To put something into context, a car can fail an NCT because of headlight alignment... in the past it could fail due to faulty registration plate lamps (it's now pass advisory). I have to assume that there are good reasons why headlight alignment is tested, but I think you would be hard pressed to statistically demonstrate that it's an effective use of the resources of everyone involved - owners\mechanics\nct staff.
A car can also fail NCT due to not having a working horn.

A car without an NCT can be impounded immediately on the road by a Guard. If you don't have an NCT cert you might get away without being impounded but the Guard isn't going to start checking why you failed.

So your car could actually be impounded, and you earn penalty points on your licence, because your car doesn't have a horn. Or being in total compliance with headlight alignment standards.

Hard to get accurate figures for number of cars impounded per year, back in 2011 it was 26,000 for not having NCT, insurance or tax (we can leave the wisdom of using guards in such a direct role in revenue collection for another thread).

If we had tests in Ireland for bikes, you would not get one if you didn't have a bell. Just setting the context there, have discussed earlier their importance\possible alternatives.

In Ireland a guard is entitled to impound any bicycle that they deem mechanically defective or non-compliant. They don't need to wait for a bicycle mechanic.

Kev W

Fian wrote: »

I don't know why i am bothering.

But anyway:

93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance..


In the irish context it is not against the law to wheel a bike which does not have a bell. In this context pushing a bike does not constitute "using" the pedal cycle in a public place. So it would not be unlawful here.

Of course in the Irish context if a Garda actually brought a prosecution for using a bike without a bell he would most likely find the charges dismissed and himself bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour by way of reprimand from the court. Because even though laws can sometimes be a bit daft and out of date the judiciary are people rather than robots.

Why does it matter that it would be different in an Irish context? Nobody's arguing that it wouldn't be.

Lemming

Kev W wrote: »

It's the former:
Every bicycle must have within easy reach a functioning warning device such as a bell or horn.

Again, you are very very very wrong. As has already been shown by two subsequent posters citing the relevant dead-letter law. Just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make you any less wrong, and/or any more correct. It's not, and you're not.

Cookie_Monster

tomasrojo wrote: »

Speaking of autocracy and Australia, I think the Australians are starting to look unhinged:

that's just a typo, it should say stealing instead of building

Cookie_Monster

tomasrojo wrote: »

From the Wikipedia bicycle bell page:



So a person pushing a bike isn't really the target of the law.

"Cycling Fact Sheet No. 46: Ring your bell to make others aware" (PDF). Government of Western Australia Department of Transportation. Retrieved 2011-07-03. Pedestrians have right-of-way on the State’s shared path system and the onus is on cyclists to provide a clear warning of their presence, particularly when approaching another path user from behind. For that reason, a person riding a bicycle in WA must have a bell or similar warning device that is in good working order.

(The PDF link is dead, but I'm not chasing this dead-end argument down any more dead ends.)

that link implies the person must have the bell, not the bike.
it's really a conspiracy to turn cyclists into morris dancers.

Kev W

Lemming wrote: »

Again, you are very very very wrong. As has already been shown by two subsequent posters citing the relevant dead-letter law. Just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make you any less wrong, and/or any more correct. It's not, and you're not.

They cited the Irish law, which is irrelevant to a story that occurred in Australia.

tomasrojo

Kev W wrote: »

They cited the Irish law, which is irrelevant to a story that occurred in Australia.

I didn't cite the Irish law. I cited the fact sheet from the Government of Western Australia Department of Transport (Fremantle is in the state of Western Australia), which said a person riding a bike required a bell. That's the clear spirit of the law. We don't have the exact wording, and you haven't provided it either.

tomasrojo

There are standard requirements that need to be met before a bicycle can be considered legal for use on the roads and shared paths.
These requirements include:
• a bell (or other effective warning device) that functions correctly and is fixed in a convenient position;
• an effective foot operated or hand operated rear wheel brake. A front brake is optional;
• a red reflector fitted to the rear;
• a yellow side reflector (visible from both sides) on each wheel; and
• yellow reflectors fitted to both side edges of each pedal

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/active-transport/AT_CYC_P_Cycling_Rules_Booklet.pdf

You'll note that it doesn't mention "before taking possession of" and in fact only mentions use in the context of roads and bike paths. So the person in question wasn't doing anything illegal wheeling a bike without a bell on a sidewalk.

(Also, mandatory wheel reflectors, but an optional front brake?)

Jayop

Lads don't feed the wum. Noone could be that stupid so it has to be a wum.

Kev W

Jayop wrote: »

Lads don't feed the wum. Noone could be that stupid so it has to be a wum.

I must be a wind up merchant because I believe that police should enforce the law even if it inconveniences a cyclist?

Kev W

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/active-transport/AT_CYC_P_Cycling_Rules_Booklet.pdf

You'll note that it doesn't mention "before taking possession of" and in fact only mentions use in the context of roads and bike paths. So the person in question wasn't doing anything illegal wheeling a bike without a bell on a sidewalk.

(Also, mandatory wheel reflectors, but an optional front brake?)

Why should wheel reflectors not be mandatory?

Why should a front brake not be optional when a rear brake is mandatory?

Do you think the rules go too far or not far enough?

tomasrojo

Kev W wrote: »

Why should wheel reflectors not be mandatory?

Why should a front brake not be optional when a rear brake is mandatory?

Do you think the rules go too far or not far enough?

I presume you're not going to engage with the bit that addresses the point you've been making for over a day now:

Kev W wrote: »

Why would the fact that she was walking make a difference? She still didn't have a bell on the bike and was in breach of the law.

She almost certainly wasn't in breach of the law. And even if she was, technically, it was just vindictive to ticket her. Which is also what these new laws are.

catbear

By Kev W logic kids buggy's should have bells too.

Kev W

catbear wrote: »

By Kev W logic kids buggy's should have bells too.

No, because a kid's buggy is not a bicycle. Which is what we're talking about.

This is like me saying "by catbear's logic, bells should be illegal".

Pointless exaggeration only weakens your position.

Fian

Kev W wrote: »

No, because a kid's buggy is not a bicycle. Which is what we're talking about.

This is like me saying "by catbear's logic, bells should be illegal".

Pointless exaggeration only weakens your position.

Pull the other one. It has bells on.

Kev W

Fian wrote: »

Pull the other one. It has bells on.

You disagree that exaggeration weakens one's argument?

catbear

Kev, it's not an exaggeration but a direct extrapolation.

Kev W

It's becoming very clear why the cycling forum has the reputation that it does, if the very notion that the law should apply to cyclists is so offensive.

The funny thing is I'd been considering buying a bike myself but certainly won't now for fear that I become one of you.

Kev W

catbear wrote: »

Kev, it's not an exaggeration but a direct extrapolation.

No it isn't. A baby buggy is not equivalent to a bicycle, you don't use it on the roads for a start.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: I haven't read the thread, I don't want too. It is the only reason cards are not coming out. Trolling is a card and a ban, responding is the same. I will go back and start reading the thread from the start but any trolling, feeding trolls or general wind up shenanigans after this post will be met with a card and a ban. If you do not know for certain if your post is not in one of these categories then either PM me for clarification or don't post.

desertcircus

Kev W wrote: »

No, because a kid's buggy is not a bicycle. Which is what we're talking about.

This is like me saying "by catbear's logic, bells should be illegal".

Pointless exaggeration only weakens your position.

You do understand that there is usually a purpose or reason for the existence of a law, right? That they don't simply appear fully formed in the statute books?